Researchers from Korea investigated the affect of 1800 MHz (at 10 W/kg SAR)
on immune cells and concluded that "These results indicate that the alterations
in cell proliferation, cell cycle progression, DNA integrity or global gene
expression was not detected upon 1763 MHz RF radiation under 10 W/kg SAR for 24
h to Jurkat T cells". Interestingly, they found small effects on both
genetic expression and regulation, both in the direction that would suggest
possible small effects from RF exposure. We would be interested if any cellular
biologists out there could explain what the affects might have, and on what
systems, if any.

Rats exposed to mobile phone levels of RF (SAR = 0.4 W/kg) for 2 hours per
day over 45 days found that the exposure had a number of statistically
significant effects on the way they responded to pain-inducing stimuli. This is,
as far as we are aware, the first study looking at secondary effects to response
times on other environmental stimuli, but suggests that neurological responses
are being affected. If true, and present in humans, this could have severe
implications on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, such as exposure to EMFs in
itself being insufficient to cause adverse health effects, but it may cause
responses to other environmental stimuli to become more severe.

As a follow up to their earlier study, Finnish researchers have been investigating ODC activity in
a number of cell types. This research looked at Fibroblasts (responsible for connective tissues and tissue healing) and
found that whilst a single statistically significant difference was observed at
one endpoint, there were no consistent effects from exposure to radiofrequency
radiation. Their earlier study found significant effects in astrocytes (glial cells
involved in, amongst other things, the function of the blood brain barrier), and
this latest paper does not affect those results.

Whilst on the subject of blood brain barrier effects, a Swedish team have
found statistically significant (P < 0.02) effects of neuronal damage in
post-mortally examined rats having been exposed to extremely low levels of RF
radiation (0.12 mW/kg up to 120 mW/kg). This is a similar exposure to those
chronically exposed to Mobile Phone base stations (typically 1-3 mW/kg at a
distance of 25m), and is concerning. Due to the examination requiring the death
of the subject, it is not possible to analyse humans for an effect in the same
manner. This supports a number of earlier papers by the same authors on cellular
and neurological effects[Salford 2003, Belyaev
2005, Markova 2005,
Belyaev 2006, Belyaev 2008].

A paper from Italy has found strong but inconsistent effects on 1 (of 4
tested) gene transcript in human trophoblasts from GSM (but not CW) RF radiation
exposure. Oddly, GSM-217 enhanced levels of protein expression and GSM-talk
reduced levels of protein expressions. They summarise that the effects may not
be direct effects but may be secondary effects caused by more subtle alterations
not detected at the protein level. It is not clear what impact this has on the
existing literature on HSP effects from radiofrequency EMF exposure.

A team of researchers from Hallym university in Chuncheon, Korea, has found
strongly significant (P < 0.001) increases in cell apoptosis in mouse
testicular germ cells from exposure to 14 µT 60 Hz magnetic fields. This
is a long way above typical chronic background exposure, but is also
considerably below ICNIRP guidance levels. Much of the work evaluating the
effect of electromagnetic radiation on fertility has been on radiofrequency
radiation and mobile telephony[Fejes 2005, Erogul
2006, Agarwal 2008,
Baste 2008, Agarwal Sept 2008].
This latest research suggests that ELF exposure may also have an effect on
fertility.

A French laboratory team have investigated the leukaemogenic effects of 50 Hz
magnetic fields by exposing a rat model (induced with B acute lymphoblastic
leukaemia) to 100 µT magnetic fields. The development and proliferation of
the leukaemia was analysed, and not found to be affected by the electromagnetic
field exposure. It is hard to understand why such high field levels were used
when the public concern is around 0.4 µT levels. Whilst we do not
understand the mechanism involved (if any), it is inappropriate to assume that
"if 0.4 µT is leukaemogenic, 100 µT will be to". It is unclear
whether this paper contributes much to the existing literature.

Profs Joachim Schuz and Anders Ahlbom have published a review assessing
the association between electromagnetic fields and an increase in risk of
childhood leukaemia. Acknowledging the consistent findings of an increased risk
in the epidemiological literature, the authors caveat the association by stating
that "No mechanism to explain this finding has been established and no support
for a causal link emerged from experimental studies".